Paging Pedro Feliciano: The 2008 Season Is Leaving Without You

I think the Red Sox accomplished something that hasn’t been done before, and if it has, very seldom. It appears they had the Larry O’Brien, Lombardi, World Series trophies, along with the Stanley Cup, all in one place.

Check out link…had no idea he had a custom pouch added.

[quote]Today’s my mom’s birthday, so I’ll be spending most of the day with the ’rents. Everyone behave while I’m gone. Mom, if you’re reading this (or, more likely, if Pop is reading it to you), have a great birthday morning – I’ll be there in a couple of hours.[/quote]

such a good boy

I Am a NY-er at heart, though i cannot stand the Mets…but I have to ask…if Shea is going away like Yankee this season, why isnt there any hoopla over it? I Mean there were what, a couple of times Shea was important, right? The Beatles…the Game 6 moment, the Ventura HR in 1999, the Yankees winning the 2000 WS in Game 5? I think that is it…;-)

But that Shea NOB LOGO sux! That is NOT the way to commemorate a man who is a god to these Mets Folk

I swear the logo in the middle of the black ribbon is link. I’ll look to see why it’s up there.

[quote comment=”249863″]I swear the logo in the middle of the black ribbon is link. I’ll look to see why it’s up there.[/quote]

Looks like a green ribbon. Wouldn’t be shocked if it was some kind of Earth Day promotion coming up.

[quote comment=”249866″][quote comment=”249863″]I swear the logo in the middle of the black ribbon is link. I’ll look to see why it’s up there.[/quote]

Looks like a green ribbon. Wouldn’t be shocked if it was some kind of Earth Day promotion coming up.[/quote]

Zooming in (without photo editing equipment, mind you), it definitely looks like the Jay Head logo in the middle of a dark green ribbon – making sure people know the Blue Jays are for saving the earth, I guess? I don’t suppose they could do that by, oh, I don’t know … not closing the dome and pumping in artificial air/heat for sporting events that were meant to take place outside?

Not only did they add a dropshadow to the Mets’ retired numbers, it looks like they changed the number style as well, especially on that 37 (compare it with the old number).

No word on the tourney contest?

Manny’s white glove that was disallowed by MLB…

Several readers (and one of my ESPN editors) have complained about Orioles reliever George Sherill and his flat-brim cap. I don’t like the look either, but it’s hardly unique – just ask Chad Cordero.

Don’t forget Anthony Reyes…….

link

[quote comment=”249875″]No word on the tourney contest?[/quote]

Vince hasn’t gotten back to me yet with the results. Tomorrow, I’m sure.

link sponsorship related news there. Dunno why the BBC insist on calling it part of Lanarkshire, and also what kind of point Jack Law is trying to make there. It’s not as if Gretna players are going to go to Subway before a match either (or would do if they could afford to.)

Wonder if the clubs will push the “social responsibility” angle or have a new sponsor lined up for next year.

/me waits for the usual debate that invariably ignores team colours and base design elements as a form of identification

This question was asked yesterday – It’s probably been asked, but why does Tennessee’s women’s basketball team wear blue and the men don’t have it? Are there any other teams that have gender specific?

I can only speak about Tennessee. The Lady Vols have used light blue as an accent color for as long as I can remember, back to the 70’s. It’s actually part of the Lady Vols logo. I believe all Lady Vols teams use blue in some form.
The basketball men used light blue or grey in the 70’s and eighties. Eventually all the men sports started using black as an accent, which as a traditionalist, I hate. The only men’s sports uni that has no black is the football home jersey, which is all orange and white.

The previous number style used on the Mets’ retired numbers was just a generic block number. I think it looks pretty cheap.

I know you don’t like the black drop shadow, but the numer style used on the current numbers is identical to what is worn on the field, so at least there’s some consistency (if not historical accuracy).

[quote comment=”249876″]Manny’s white glove that was disallowed by MLB…

link

Things just keep getting worse and worse with the Mets. Just makes their 2006 playoff failure hurt more, because they’re never going to make it back, they’re never going to wear their actual home uniforms in home games with any degree of regularity, they’re never going to “ditch the black,” and they’re never going to be able to compete with the Yankees, either on the field or uni-wise.

There’s only so much a fan can take.

Anyone else watching the womens game bothered by Stanford wearing Black? I know their colors are Red n White but the whole black jersey just didnt look right.

I’m curious: I’m not a UniWatch newbie by any means, but I’m really curious: has anyone ever tried to make the long pants thing against the uniform rules?

In this link in the article, the long pants look so bad, and its so UN-uniform. Check out the link wearing stirrups.

Why are teams allowed to do this? My hometown link all wear the stirrups…why can’t everyone? Seriously? Its called a “link” for a link.

I am sure some of you will say, “well, thats the point of this site, that you ‘get it’.”

Why isn’t baseball seriously taking this into consideration? Are they and I missed the conversation?

They penalize basketball players for not wearing the right color shoes…they banned long shorts in basketball (I think)… Whats the hold up here?

i mentioned a few days ago that the mets were going to get link from an online poll. now every 8th inning they’ll be hearing link. there’s also a full shot of the shea emblem on the visible on the wall

They penalize basketball players for not wearing the right color shoes…they banned long shorts in basketball (I think)… Whats the hold up here?

To put teeth in any uniform rules, they would have to make it part of the collective bargaining agreement

Anyone know where I can get one of those Yankee jackets? They’re much better than the ones with the script “Yankees” on them but I can’t find them anywhere.

Those aren’t ushers at the Ranger game. That’s Claude Osteen, a former big league pitcher and coach, and another former player. They still sell all of those hats in the gift shop in the new performance material.

I don’t know if it (rven home/odd road numbers in high school basketball) was a specific rule but it was widespread in the 70s – our high school had even/odd jerseys for home-road. And one of the schools in our conference retired a number for an all-state player and the trophy case had two jerseys – 22 home, 23 road.

I graduated in 75 so I’m not sure when this was changed.

One other interesting uniform note from that time – they changed the rules on lines on jerseys, possibly because of Marquette’s “bumblebee’ unis. Our school had little racing stripes on the front
(above and below the school name, in a baseball type script, and the number at its lower right as you face the jersey) and back (above and below the number) for its road jerseys in 1974, when they put in a rule – no striping on the body of the jersey except for the four inches on the side panels. So we had to get new unis – but they didn’t arrive until January. So for the first few games of the season, our team had to wear white at home and on the road because they were the only legal jerseys we had. (The white ones had the team name above and below the number but that was legal – sort of like
POLAR
21
BEARS
Sadly, I saw my school play this past winter, in horribly plain jerseys that weren’t quite Frocks for Jocks, but could have been.)
Sorry about the long old-guy rambling.

[quote comment=”249885″]I’m curious: I’m not a UniWatch newbie by any means, but I’m really curious: has anyone ever tried to make the long pants thing against the uniform rules?

In this link in the article, the long pants look so bad, and its so UN-uniform. Check out the link wearing stirrups.

Why are teams allowed to do this? My hometown link all wear the stirrups…why can’t everyone? Seriously? Its called a “link” for a link.

I am sure some of you will say, “well, thats the point of this site, that you ‘get it’.”

Why isn’t baseball seriously taking this into consideration? Are they and I missed the conversation?

They penalize basketball players for not wearing the right color shoes…they banned long shorts in basketball (I think)… Whats the hold up here?[/quote]

I’m not picking on you Tony but we can’t have it both ways. We rail on the NFL for being the “No Fun League” due their massive restrictions and then we turn around and rail on MLB for not having enough restrictions. Which one is better? I don’t really know, but I do know that if nothing else we should be consistent.

Justin Chamberlains hat is so flat, it is almost inverted …
link

[quote comment=”249889″]Anyone know where I can get one of those Yankee jackets? They’re much better than the ones with the script “Yankees” on them but I can’t find them anywhere.[/quote]

Try link. MLB’s online shop has been notoriously slow at times.

[quote comment=”249892″]
I’m not picking on you Tony but we can’t have it both ways. We rail on the NFL for being the “No Fun League” due their massive restrictions and then we turn around and rail on MLB for not having enough restrictions. Which one is better? I don’t really know, but I do know that if nothing else we should be consistent.[/quote]

Speak for yourself – I am very consistent. I think the NFL is absolutely correct, and MLB should take a page from their book when it comes to uniform standards.

I think my comment disappeared…

[quote comment=”249893″]Justin Chamberlains hat is so flat, it is almost inverted …
link

JOBA, not Justin

[quote comment=”249895″][quote comment=”249892″]
I’m not picking on you Tony but we can’t have it both ways. We rail on the NFL for being the “No Fun League” due their massive restrictions and then we turn around and rail on MLB for not having enough restrictions. Which one is better? I don’t really know, but I do know that if nothing else we should be consistent.[/quote]

Speak for yourself – I am very consistent. I think the NFL is absolutely correct, and MLB should take a page from their book when it comes to uniform standards.[/quote]

I was being serious Tony; I wasn’t picking on you. I was being more general…you know, uniwatch as a whole.

That being said, I lean more towards the MLB way of it. I would rather have a little creativity and less uniformity in my sports. And I stress a “little”. No need to have infielders have one set of pants, outfielders another, and the battery another (ala USFL, I believe).

[quote comment=”249886″]i mentioned a few days ago that the mets were going to get link from an online poll. now every 8th inning they’ll be hearing link. there’s also a full shot of the shea emblem on the visible on the wall[/quote]

Not exactly. The Mets knew what had happened, so they changed the rules. They’re going to play the top 6 songs during the first 6 home games, and sort of have a re-vote. They did play the Rick Astley song yesterday though. Tonight at the game, Bon Jovi’s “Living On A Prayer” will be played.

link

[quote comment=”249901″][quote comment=”249895″][quote comment=”249892″]
I’m not picking on you Tony but we can’t have it both ways. We rail on the NFL for being the “No Fun League” due their massive restrictions and then we turn around and rail on MLB for not having enough restrictions. Which one is better? I don’t really know, but I do know that if nothing else we should be consistent.[/quote]

Speak for yourself – I am very consistent. I think the NFL is absolutely correct, and MLB should take a page from their book when it comes to uniform standards.[/quote]

I was being serious Tony; I wasn’t picking on you. I was being more general…you know, uniwatch as a whole.
[/quote]

I know, but any time you get any two people together, no matter who they are you will find inconsistencies between their positions on some subjects.

Unless you can find posters who have inconsistent positions on the NFL and MLB uniform regulations, I don’t know what you’re expecting to do….

[quote comment=”249883″]Things just keep getting worse and worse with the Mets. Just makes their 2006 playoff failure hurt more, because they’re never going to make it back, they’re never going to wear their actual home uniforms in home games with any degree of regularity, they’re never going to “ditch the black,” and they’re never going to be able to compete with the Yankees, either on the field or uni-wise.

There’s only so much a fan can take.[/quote]

Whoo, boy. And they say us Phillies’ fans are all doom and gloom. (But it is nice to read about. :-))

[quote comment=”249877″]Several readers (and one of my ESPN editors) have complained about Orioles reliever George Sherill and his flat-brim cap. I don’t like the look either, but it’s hardly unique – just ask Chad Cordero.

Don’t forget Anthony Reyes…….

link

I don’t get the flat-brim look, either. And I’m not buying the ‘batter can’t see my eyes’ excuse either.
At least the other guys don’t look as big a goofus as Cordero does. Maybe it’s the flat brim and the big round head?

I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?

Is anyone else going through college football withdrawl?

Here’s to hoping that link never happen again…

…and that link would just go away.

Can you say link days? (I’m going to miss seeing Favre on Sunday’s…)

Can you say link?

[quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I don’t think Jackie Robinson and the effect he had on the game can be talked about “too much”. If it were once a month or every week, sure, but how many kids stop getting excited over Christmas because it happens each and every year?

[quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I agree. Well, I could understand having Jackie Robinson Day every year – but having the players wear #42 every year is a little much.

No word on the tourney contest?

Vince hasn’t gotten back to me yet with the results. Tomorrow, I’m sure.

Not a problem. Davidson was one of my teams so I’m interested to see how I did.

I found several basketball number clues when I looked around.

College basketball first allowed the numbers “1” and “2” in 99-2000. It notes that the reason for their previous banning was “confusion by referees”.

In 2003-2004, the Iowa High School Association felt inclined to note that the even-at-home/odd-on-road convention was NOT a rule. In 2005-2006 the Southwest Iowa Athletic Directors still felt it important to mention this at their annual meeting. I think Iowa may have been one of the last places this survived.

I found this mention on an the International School Sports Federation: “International games mandate the numbers from 4 to 15. At the high school and college levels, numbers generally range from 1-5, 10-15, 20-25, 30-35, 40-45, and 50-55, plus 0 and 00; in NCAA basketball, these are the only legal numbers. In some states, high school teams must wear even-numbered jerseys if they’re the home team and odd-numbered jerseys if they’re considered the visitor. Also, teams may have either 0 or 00, but not both. Uniform numbers in the NBA are generally the same, but digits greater than 5 have always been allowed (e.g., all-time great Bill Russell wore #6 with the Boston Celtics, and current star Andrei Kirilenko wears #47 with the Utah Jazz), and some players have worn numbers above 55 (like Dennis Rodman, who wore #91 while playing with the Chicago Bulls and George Mikan, who wore #99 with the Minneapolis Lakers).”

But, I haven’t found mention of a state still having such a rule.

[quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I think you’re right on both counts.

I don’t really mind the flat-brim look. Sure, it looks kinda odd at first but if that’s how they feel comfortable wearing the hat, so be it.

I cant find any photos but last night some of the Norfolk Tides players had their name plates like upside down so it formed a U. Any one else catch this?

[quote comment=”249891″]I don’t know if it (rven home/odd road numbers in high school basketball) was a specific rule but it was widespread in the 70s – our high school had even/odd jerseys for home-road. And one of the schools in our conference retired a number for an all-state player and the trophy case had two jerseys – 22 home, 23 road.

I graduated in 75 so I’m not sure when this was changed.[/quote]
The even/odd split for high-school basketball uniforms was the rule in Missouri as late as 1970/71 (my senior year); by the time I graduated from Mizzou and started broadcasting high-school hoops in Arkansas for the ’75/76 season, the Blytheville HS “Chickasaws” were using two-digit “odd” numbers both home and road… no single digits, just # 11, 13, 15, 21, 23, etc. They’ve kept that tradition ever since!

Anyone else surprised that the Red Sox didn’t break out the gold-trimmed jerseys for the home opener yesterday?

[quote comment=”249883″]Things just keep getting worse and worse with the Mets. Just makes their 2006 playoff failure hurt more, because they’re never going to make it back, they’re never going to wear their actual home uniforms in home games with any degree of regularity, they’re never going to “ditch the black,” and they’re never going to be able to compete with the Yankees, either on the field or uni-wise.

There’s only so much a fan can take.[/quote]

ya gotta believe, man…the season’s not even a week old

yeah…so the unis aren’t what we want, and they insist on black caps and socks and drop shadows and long pants and flat brims (im talking to you, jose) and no stirrups and rick peterson wearing his jacket in 95 degree weather forcing charlie samuels to lay out the black caps (because black and blue DON’T GO TOGETHER…HELLO)…

but…dammit…they’re OUR boys, and i won’t have you jumping ship YET

christ, tho…can we please beat the goddam phillies ONCE in a while???

At the high school and college levels, numbers generally range from 1-5, 10-15, 20-25, 30-35, 40-45, and 50-55, plus 0 and 00; in NCAA basketball, these are the only legal numbers.

I believe that’s so refs can identify which player committed a foul by only having to signal their hands once.

[quote comment=”249894″][quote comment=”249889″]Anyone know where I can get one of those Yankee jackets? They’re much better than the ones with the script “Yankees” on them but I can’t find them anywhere.[/quote]

Try link. MLB’s online shop has been notoriously slow at times.[/quote]

The auction states this is the first time the Yankees have had a road jacket and I certainly can’t remember them having one previously. But is that true?

From Yesterday’s comments:
[quote comment=”249760″]It’s probably been asked, but why does Tennessee’s women’s basketball team wear blue and the men don’t have it? Are there any other teams that have gender specific colors?[/quote]

I went to college at Louisiana Tech university, and our women’s basketball program has had a long standing rivalry with the Lady Vols since the begining of the Women’s Championship. It was said that Pat Summit added the blue to the Lady Vols uniforms as a sign of respect for Lady Techster’s former head coach, Leon Barmore, whom she saw as a mentor and a friend. I have not found anything to support this, but the guy who told me this knows his stuff and has never been wrong on other factoids.

[quote comment=”249914″][quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I agree. Well, I could understand having Jackie Robinson Day every year – but having the players wear #42 every year is a little much.[/quote]

This is what I’m saying. I would never want to stop honoring Jackie (speeches, TV specials, etc.) but everyone wearing #42 every year is a bit much. I’m afraid, however, that no matter how much you promote Jackie’s strength and integrity, his legacy will fade with the youth. How many people under the age of 25 really understand what Martin Luther King Jr. did? How many kids under 25 can really truly comprehend what life was like in the Jim Crow era? How many kids under 25 have any idea about the Negro Leagues? I think that no matter how we honor the past, the youth will be farther and farther away from it and eventually it will be gone. By wearing #42 every five years it becomes an event, something special, something to make a kid ask “Dad, who’s Jackie Robinson?” By wearing #42 every year it will eventually lose its impact.

Case in point, Sean Taylor’s #21. When the ‘Skins wore their stickers and honored him it was a very nice and fitting honor for a murdered teammate. When the NFL got invovled and everyone started wearing #21, it lost its impact and became widely denegrated, even here on Uni-Watch.

Changing the subject slightly, the link are a thing of beauty (except for the Adidas logo).

But how is it that a AAA team can get it link when the major league club link?

I think kids under 25 understand MLK’s legacy. I really do.

However, I think kids under 25 might be misguided about the Jim Crow Era.

Heck, I’m a white guy, what the hell do I know anyway?

But without Jackie Robinson being into the majors and SUCCEEDING, despite everything he went through, there’d be no integration. Imagine if he’d done what he was previously known for and was a temper tornado in the major leagues? You’d NEVER have seen another black man in the majors, at least for a long time.

I think that players HAVING THE OPTION to wear #42 once a year is wonderful and shouldn’t be questioned. God Bless Ken Griffey Jr for forcing MLB to do it.

Which still leads me to ask : we can’t have a rule about short pants but there had to be a big inquiry to letting players have a number tribute to baseball’s second most influential player?

Anthony Reyes always claimed he wore the flat brim because he was near sighted and could see better. He had Lasik surgery in off-season. I can’t tell if his cap brim is still totally flat. But the stirrups make up for it [not that I mind the flat brim].
link

[quote comment=”249877″]Several readers (and one of my ESPN editors) have complained about Orioles reliever George Sherill and his flat-brim cap. I don’t like the look either, but it’s hardly unique – just ask Chad Cordero.

Don’t forget Anthony Reyes…….

link

His hat is awful but check out the [quote comment=”249912″]Is anyone else going through college football withdrawl?

Here’s to hoping that link never happen again…

…and that link would just go away.

Can you say link days? (I’m going to miss seeing Favre on Sunday’s…)

Can you say link?[/quote]
!

I was until I started trolling the schools’ websites to check on Spring Practice news.

As for the Ducks, I love their unis, but prefer those of the link era.

[quote comment=”249914″][quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I agree. Well, I could understand having Jackie Robinson Day every year – but having the players wear #42 every year is a little much.[/quote]

I disagree; if #42 is going to be kept out of circulation on days other than Jackie Robinson Day, then the #42 thing should be done very year. It’s one day out of about 200, and it happens toward the beginning of the season when the opening games are over and the summer holidays and pennant race haven’t yet arrived. There won’t be much overshadowing Jackie Robinson Day in future Aprils.

If it only happened every five years, players whose careers happened to only span the 61st through 64th anniversaries of 1947, for example, would be denied the chance to wear #42 just because of a quirk in the calendar.

I was really upset when Selig banned #42 for every team, and I think that this anniversary thing is the best way he could possibly have redeemed himself. I hope this is the start of a new tradition that continues every year.

[quote comment=”249897″][quote comment=”249893″]Justin Chamberlains hat is so flat, it is almost inverted …
link

JOBA, not Justin[/quote]

Joba was born Justin Louis Chamberlain.

My guess is that it’s not “El CD” but “El Cid”. El Cid is a hero and nobleman from 11th century Spain who’s story has reached epic mythical proportions. He’s like a national hero in Spain.

He’s also the topic of the oldest known preserved epic Spanish poem which every Spanish major (like me) had to read. It’s called Cantar de Mio Cid and it would have been performed by a minstrel or what-have-you.

[quote comment=”249906″][quote comment=”249883″]Things just keep getting worse and worse with the Mets. Just makes their 2006 playoff failure hurt more, because they’re never going to make it back, they’re never going to wear their actual home uniforms in home games with any degree of regularity, they’re never going to “ditch the black,” and they’re never going to be able to compete with the Yankees, either on the field or uni-wise.

There’s only so much a fan can take.[/quote]

Whoo, boy. And they say us Phillies’ fans are all doom and gloom. (But it is nice to read about. :-))[/quote]

Misery loves company, as they say. ;-)

Incredibly, they’ve played the last three games just like they played every game last September: lifeless, gutless, heartless; bad defense, bullpen meltdowns, unable to score runs while the other team gets two-out hit after two-out hit, and the players just don’t seem to care.

All this might be tolerable if the team Got Itâ„¢, but not only do they not Get Itâ„¢, they Get Itâ„¢ less than all the other teams in MLB combined. For chr*ssake, they wear their road caps at home!!! And not just occasionally, in practically every home game!! NO other team does that. And the Mets do it for the stupidest reason imaginable.

When applying Paul’s “Is it good, or is it stupid?” test to the Mets, the answer is invariably “Stupid, stupid, stupid!” Hence this morning’s main article. 10 years of the STUPID black caps is enough, thank you very much.

The Phillies have one home uniform and one road uniform, both of which are very nice, and a new alternate to be worn only occasionally, which is also very nice. The Mets have a home uniform which they never wear, which was great until it was sullied with black trim, as was the road uniform (both are now merely decent), and a bunch of alternates and combinations that range from fairly decent (plain whites with blue caps) to downright awful (white or pinstripes with either black cap, home or road black jerseys with all-black cap).

The Phillies Get Itâ„¢. The Yankees Get Itâ„¢. The Mets don’t, and they never will.

[quote comment=”249938″][quote comment=”249897″][quote comment=”249893″]Justin Chamberlains hat is so flat, it is almost inverted …
link

JOBA, not Justin[/quote]

Joba was born Justin Louis Chamberlain.[/quote]
Right but he is called joba

[quote comment=”249935″][quote comment=”249877″]Several readers (and one of my ESPN editors) have complained about Orioles reliever George Sherill and his flat-brim cap. I don’t like the look either, but it’s hardly unique – just ask Chad Cordero.

Don’t forget Anthony Reyes…….

link

His hat is awful but check out the [quote comment=”249912″]Is anyone else going through college football withdrawl?

Here’s to hoping that link never happen again…

…and that link would just go away.

Can you say link days? (I’m going to miss seeing Favre on Sunday’s…)

Can you say link?[/quote]
!

I was until I started trolling the schools’ websites to check on Spring Practice news.

As for the Ducks, I love their unis, but prefer those of the link era.[/quote]

Sorry, my page loaded strangely, link

[quote comment=”249879″]link sponsorship related news there. Dunno why the BBC insist on calling it part of Lanarkshire, and also what kind of point Jack Law is trying to make there. It’s not as if Gretna players are going to go to Subway before a match either (or would do if they could afford to.)

Wonder if the clubs will push the “social responsibility” angle or have a new sponsor lined up for next year.

/me waits for the usual debate that invariably ignores team colours and base design elements as a form of identification[/quote]

The bigger issue is that Alcohol sponsors 5 clubs in EPL and SPL, also there are 4 online gambling oufits in EPL. It is distressing to see kids going around as billboards for link and link. I know that every club has shirt sponsors, but there should be some guidelines for this, such as France having a ban on Alcohol and cigarette ads.

Or they could just ditch the shirt sponsors altogether…..jeez that would be too easy

[quote comment=”249895″][quote comment=”249892″]
I’m not picking on you Tony but we can’t have it both ways. We rail on the NFL for being the “No Fun League” due their massive restrictions and then we turn around and rail on MLB for not having enough restrictions. Which one is better? I don’t really know, but I do know that if nothing else we should be consistent.[/quote]

Speak for yourself – I am very consistent. I think the NFL is absolutely correct, and MLB should take a page from their book when it comes to uniform standards.[/quote]

i TOTALLY agree chance…uniforms should be just that…i’ve said it before, so i won’t go on ad infinitum, and as much as it pains me to say, i’d rather have 25 guys dressed exactly the same (even if they all wear long and baggy pants, flat brims, and softball alts-all of which i detest) than 25 stylin’ individualists in a rag-tag hodge-podge manner

of course, im anal retentive (think melvin udall)…

/good times, noodle salad

I was at the Mets game yesterday and when they came out and I saw the black caps and accessories I said to my wife Paul from the uniwatchblog is not going to be happy. I hate the black accessories and wish they would just wear the blue ones instead. Especially on the last home opener at Shea.

Oh, and NFL used to have baggy sleeves, didn’t they? Now they have that Saran Wrap look.

Sort of the same vein as the pants debate I’m cooking today.

Don, I’m curious — what did your wife say about “paul from the uniwatchblog” ? My girlfriend always gives me that ‘stinky fart smell’ face. HAHA

link

[quote comment=”249952″]link[/quote]

i’ll even overlook the brim… WE HAVE STIRRUPS!

[quote comment=”249917″][quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I think you’re right on both counts.[/quote]

I agree as well, except that I think once a decade would suffice. The man has been sufficiently honored. Enough already.

re; odd/even road/home basketball uniform numbers. The Philadelphia Catholic League had the same system when I was in high school. The reason being there would be no mistaking by the scorers’ table the number of fingers a referee held up when assessing a foul.

Robert, buddy, this isn’t Sean Taylor we’re talking about.

Jackie effing Robinson.

[quote comment=”249951″]Oh, and NFL used to have baggy sleeves, didn’t they? Now they have that Saran Wrap look.

Sort of the same vein as the pants debate I’m cooking today.

Don, I’m curious — what did your wife say about “paul from the uniwatchblog” ? My girlfriend always gives me that ‘stinky fart smell’ face. HAHA[/quote]

I have to disagree with you, Tony. The tight football jerseys serve a purpose (so the other team can’t grab you) … baseball pajama pants are for no reason but *fashion*.

[quote]Turns out the University of Wisconsin folks aren’t the only ones who like to sue people over uniform trademark infringement. [/quote]

Actually, that’s a lawsuit over copyright infringement – the mouldings of the original suits are sculptural works, which fall under copyright law.

[quote comment=”249951″]Oh, and NFL used to have baggy sleeves, didn’t they? Now they have that Saran Wrap look.

Sort of the same vein as the pants debate I’m cooking today.

Don, I’m curious — what did your wife say about “paul from the uniwatchblog” ? My girlfriend always gives me that ‘stinky fart smell’ face. HAHA[/quote]

My wife has embraced my quirks. But as I mentioned the other day, every time I mention terms loke “logo creep” or “SOD”, she begins to fiegn narcolepsy, at least I think!

And BTW, I THANK ALL DEITIES,(as should all of you), that I wasn’t around yesterday for the Physical Education Debate.

Regarding the women’s Final last night: Stanford’s school color IS their nickname, so you’d think they would maybe have uniforms in that color, but instead their black road uniforms take a giant dump on everything.

[quote comment=”249947″][quote comment=”249895″][quote comment=”249892″]
I’m not picking on you Tony but we can’t have it both ways. We rail on the NFL for being the “No Fun League” due their massive restrictions and then we turn around and rail on MLB for not having enough restrictions. Which one is better? I don’t really know, but I do know that if nothing else we should be consistent.[/quote]

Speak for yourself – I am very consistent. I think the NFL is absolutely correct, and MLB should take a page from their book when it comes to uniform standards.[/quote]

i TOTALLY agree chance…uniforms should be just that…i’ve said it before, so i won’t go on ad infinitum, and as much as it pains me to say, i’d rather have 25 guys dressed exactly the same (even if they all wear long and baggy pants, flat brims, and softball alts-all of which i detest) than 25 stylin’ individualists in a rag-tag hodge-podge manner

of course, im anal retentive (think melvin udall)…

/good times, noodle salad[/quote]

I dunno, for whatever strange reason, I think sock/stirrups is the one place where creativity is allowed, and should be IMO, and no, I don’t any good reason to back up that statement. As much as I hate the pajamas or, for that matter, any long baseball pants, I know if a vote was held, and only one way OK’d by the league rules, the long pants would win hands down. And that might make me a sad boy. Maybe it’s just in my area, but even the schools that require uniforms let the girls wear pretty much any socks they want. Hell, even at work there’s women that wear crazy colored socks that totally clash with their outfit, but it’s still cool and I get a kick out of it. But, I understand where you guys are coming from, a uniform is a uniform, and lets say two guy wore different stirrups, that might irritate me.

[quote comment=”249935″][quote comment=”249877″]Several readers (and one of my ESPN editors) have complained about Orioles reliever George Sherill and his flat-brim cap. I don’t like the look either, but it’s hardly unique – just ask Chad Cordero.

Don’t forget Anthony Reyes…….

link

His hat is awful but check out the [quote comment=”249912″]Is anyone else going through college football withdrawl?

Here’s to hoping that link never happen again…

…and that link would just go away.

Can you say link days? (I’m going to miss seeing Favre on Sunday’s…)

Can you say link?[/quote]
!

I was until I started trolling the schools’ websites to check on Spring Practice news.

As for the Ducks, I love their unis, but prefer those of the link era.[/quote]

Those Akili-era unis are definitely better than what they have now, but the best look was the Danny O’Neil/Alex Molden era, before they arbitrarily added black to their color scheme.

link — green, yellow and white, and nothing else.

[quote comment=”250066″]Regarding the women’s Final last night: Stanford’s school color IS their nickname, so you’d think they would maybe have uniforms in that color, but instead their black road uniforms take a giant dump on everything.[/quote]

You’d think link would, too.

Anyone else notice in the picture of the Patriots at Fenway, Tedy Bruschi is wearing a replica jersey while the others are all wearing authentic? The main differences you can see are the sleeves and the way the shirts fit. Since football jerseys are so tight I don’t blame him, but it was odd that it was just him.

hey you freeze that water that the swimmers are in and they’ll be glad they have those hockey jerseys!

Tony my wife actually had a uni related question and had me write an email to Paul to check on it! Also she’s well aware that I am always on the internet searching “geek sites” as she calls them!!!

[quote comment=”250072″][quote comment=”249935″][quote comment=”249877″]Several readers (and one of my ESPN editors) have complained about Orioles reliever George Sherill and his flat-brim cap. I don’t like the look either, but it’s hardly unique – just ask Chad Cordero.

Don’t forget Anthony Reyes…….

link

His hat is awful but check out the [quote comment=”249912″]Is anyone else going through college football withdrawl?

Here’s to hoping that link never happen again…

…and that link would just go away.

Can you say link days? (I’m going to miss seeing Favre on Sunday’s…)

Can you say link?[/quote]
!

I was until I started trolling the schools’ websites to check on Spring Practice news.

As for the Ducks, I love their unis, but prefer those of the link era.[/quote]

Those Akili-era unis are definitely better than what they have now, but the best look was the Danny O’Neil/Alex Molden era, before they arbitrarily added black to their color scheme.

link — green, yellow and white, and nothing else.[/quote]

I agree – a slightly re-vamped version of this would be great.

[quote comment=”249930″][quote comment=”249914″][quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I agree. Well, I could understand having Jackie Robinson Day every year – but having the players wear #42 every year is a little much.[/quote]

This is what I’m saying. I would never want to stop honoring Jackie (speeches, TV specials, etc.) but everyone wearing #42 every year is a bit much. I’m afraid, however, that no matter how much you promote Jackie’s strength and integrity, his legacy will fade with the youth. How many people under the age of 25 really understand what Martin Luther King Jr. did? How many kids under 25 can really truly comprehend what life was like in the Jim Crow era? How many kids under 25 have any idea about the Negro Leagues? I think that no matter how we honor the past, the youth will be farther and farther away from it and eventually it will be gone. By wearing #42 every five years it becomes an event, something special, something to make a kid ask “Dad, who’s Jackie Robinson?” By wearing #42 every year it will eventually lose its impact.

Case in point, Sean Taylor’s #21. When the ‘Skins wore their stickers and honored him it was a very nice and fitting honor for a murdered teammate. When the NFL got invovled and everyone started wearing #21, it lost its impact and became widely denegrated, even here on Uni-Watch.[/quote]

Well being right at your cutoff age of 25, I can definitly say that I think I’ve got a good understanding of what Jackie meant to the game, and the entire country for that matter. But, a lot definitly don’t, and that applys to MLK, and the entire civil rights movement. But, I don’t think it’s a lack of education, more a lack of paying attention. Sometimes when cirtain topics are jammed down our throats too many times it loses it cache, and people just block it out. that’s sad but true.

I think the fact that his number is retired league wide is strange tribute though, why not retire his in the NL, Larry Doby’s in the AL. I dunno, that’s a tough argument. But I really think bringing back any number, even for one day, just kind of shits on everything retiring it was in the first place. This goes right there with the 21 stuff last year. I don’t care where your heart is, I know these players have the knoblest of intentions, but damnit, they retired it for a reason, because they don;t want anyone else besmirching it. Add a patch for the day, paint his number behind home plate, have the Dodgers and their opponent wear 1947 throwbacks. Having some teams wear it, others with just some players, that’s just weird and dumb. Then you’ve got some guys saying, “Why aren’t you wearing 42? Don’t you care?” Just one ridiculous situation after another. I know there’s no good answer that will satisfy everyone, but this is my answer.

I see the A’s and Jays both wore their dark alts last night, with the dark green for the A’s being almost indistinguishable from the black tops worn by the Blue Jays. Why baseball allows this sort of nonsense is beyond me. And will the Jays ever wear their home white tops?

Last week it was mentioned the Royals changing the linkon the road uni to a version cut to the shape of the logo. They are still using the old style at home. No big deal because it is white-on-white, but just a little odd.

Also, many changes at “link”. Before and after show new left field bullpen, centerfield scoreboard and the removal of the board in LC. Maybe there were technical issues that necessitated the change but I really don’t think any of the new things enhance the look, IMO.

[quote comment=”249949″]I was at the Mets game yesterday and when they came out and I saw the black caps and accessories I said to my wife Paul from the uniwatchblog is not going to be happy. I hate the black accessories and wish they would just wear the blue ones instead. Especially on the last home opener at Shea.[/quote]

Black as an alternate jersey and as an accessory item is so overdone. Unless black is the primary or historic uniform color (e.g. Raiders, Bruins), then don’t go there. Sure it looked really cool when the LA Kings introduced their all black as an alternate, but then all the copycats came along (e.g. Flyers (and I am a Flyers fan), Blackhawks) trot out the black unis, and for the most part they do not work. Or teams try to blend black with their primary color and you get Midnight Green which the Eagles’ morphed into.

Stop it. Go back to your traditional colors.

[quote comment=”249947″][quote comment=”249895″][quote comment=”249892″]
I’m not picking on you Tony but we can’t have it both ways. We rail on the NFL for being the “No Fun League” due their massive restrictions and then we turn around and rail on MLB for not having enough restrictions. Which one is better? I don’t really know, but I do know that if nothing else we should be consistent.[/quote]

Speak for yourself – I am very consistent. I think the NFL is absolutely correct, and MLB should take a page from their book when it comes to uniform standards.[/quote]

i TOTALLY agree chance…uniforms should be just that…i’ve said it before, so i won’t go on ad infinitum, and as much as it pains me to say, i’d rather have 25 guys dressed exactly the same (even if they all wear long and baggy pants, flat brims, and softball alts-all of which i detest) than 25 stylin’ individualists in a rag-tag hodge-podge manner

of course, im anal retentive (think melvin udall)…

/good times, noodle salad[/quote]

To my friend Phil,

I stand with you on this topic. Michigam football used to be notorious for looking like a rag tag buch, (just look at Charles Woodson, still guilty). They would often wear undershirt of all hues of blue, tape the wastes of their pants, etc.

When I played football in college, remember that game-worn Matt Powers jersey?, the NCAA was very strict with uniform regulations:

1. Everyone had to wear the same socks, usually the NFL half and half socks. We could have also worn nike quarter socks, but the EM supplied us with the socks so that we’d be safe from penalty.

2. Jersey length had to be the same. No more Turner Gill halfshirts. There are 350 pound lineman lumbering around. Those guys had my back but their exposed midriffs were a bit disturbing!

3. The grey-glove rule came into being right after my senior year. No more team-colored gloves so that the referees would notice holding.

These tendencies continued while I coached modified football at my alma mater. I would have 80 7th and 8th graders wearing every color of the rainbow under their gear. Talk about heinous.
We put and end to that quickly instituting the rule of black, white, grey, or PURPLE! Our colors were the same as K-State.

It wasn’t a financial issue for the kids either, because very inexpensive short and long sleeved T-shirts were available in the school store as well as having Walmart and various discount chains within the community!

Instaed of looking like a group of vagabonds, we would look sharp while we beat up on our opponents. You can’t argue with theh fact that a well-outfitted group of 80 kids won’t strike a pang of fear and doubt into an opponent!

Oh, and NFL used to have baggy sleeves, didn’t they? Now they have that Saran Wrap look.
Sort of the same vein as the pants debate I’m cooking today.
Don, I’m curious – what did your wife say about “paul from the uniwatchblog” ? My girlfriend always gives me that ’stinky fart smell’ face. HAHA
I have to disagree with you, Tony. The tight football jerseys serve a purpose (so the other team can’t grab you) … baseball pajama pants are for no reason but *fashion*.

Remember we read here the interview from the equipment manager of the bengals… he said ocho-cinco tried to make a fashion statement by switching back to the baggy sleeves… after the first series he came running over to the equip. mrg. begging for a jersey with tight sleeves. The defense was grabbing him like crazy!

[quote comment=”249972″][quote comment=”249917″][quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I think you’re right on both counts.[/quote]

I agree as well, except that I think once a decade would suffice. The man has been sufficiently honored. Enough already.[/quote]
I’m glad to see this opinion on here. I thought of Sean Taylor as soon as I read the blog comments today. Before I get another eloquent “Jackie effing Robinson” post, let me explain.

I don’t think ANYONE is comparing Jackie Robinson’s impact on not only the sports world, but the overall social landscape of our country to Sean Taylor.

HOWEVA, this is honoring a deceased player. The guys that chose to wear #21 in the Pro Bowl got clowned on here for a “look at me” thing. Well, that was a meaningless, exhibition all-star game.

But, it’s OK for everyone to wear #42 in a regular season game? How is every player wearing #42 in a regular season game going to REALLY bring awareness to those in the current generation that don’t know who Jackie is? Honor the date, but I’d rather see MLB put out films, books, pamphlets, webpages on MLB.com, etc, educating young fans not only about Jackie, but the color barriers and days of the Negro Leagues in general.

When Taylor was killed, the thought brought up was “what makes this tragedy any more tragic than another?” And I agree, and this could be applied here. Sure, Jackie was the first, but what about Larry Doby (although Cleveland honored him)? What about trailblazers in sports like football, basketball, hockey, golf and tennis?

I don’t know, just my thoughts.

[quote comment=”249908″][quote comment=”249877″]Several readers (and one of my ESPN editors) have complained about Orioles reliever George Sherill and his flat-brim cap. I don’t like the look either, but it’s hardly unique – just ask Chad Cordero.

Don’t forget Anthony Reyes…….

link

I don’t get the flat-brim look, either. And I’m not buying the ‘batter can’t see my eyes’ excuse either.
At least the other guys don’t look as big a goofus as Cordero does. Maybe it’s the flat brim and the big round head?[/quote]

There is no real reason, it is just a trend. If you recall, in the old days most brims were flat. Then it was decided that you had to bend the brim to be cool. This led to items like a hat bender

link

Once everyone was bending the hats, the trend has gone back to flat brimmed hats, as this ad indicates, the rappers like

link

Flat rimemd hats will be around for a while and will become the norm, and once that occurs the trend will shift back

[quote comment=”250085″]Last week it was mentioned the Royals changing the linkon the road uni to a version cut to the shape of the logo. They are still using the old style at home. No big deal because it is white-on-white, but just a little odd.

Also, many changes at “link”. Before and after show new left field bullpen, centerfield scoreboard and the removal of the board in LC. Maybe there were technical issues that necessitated the change but I really don’t think any of the new things enhance the look, IMO.[/quote]

No more crown in center? Bummer!

[quote comment=”250085″]Last week it was mentioned the Royals changing the linkon the road uni to a version cut to the shape of the logo. They are still using the old style at home. No big deal because it is white-on-white, but just a little odd.

Also, many changes at “link”. Before and after show new left field bullpen, centerfield scoreboard and the removal of the board in LC. Maybe there were technical issues that necessitated the change but I really don’t think any of the new things enhance the look, IMO.[/quote]

It looks like construction is going on outside left field.

What kind of grip does Jose Calderon have?? I’m guessing he never played ball as a kid??

[quote comment=”250081″][quote comment=”250072″][quote comment=”249935″][quote comment=”249877″]Several readers (and one of my ESPN editors) have complained about Orioles reliever George Sherill and his flat-brim cap. I don’t like the look either, but it’s hardly unique – just ask Chad Cordero.

Don’t forget Anthony Reyes…….

link

His hat is awful but check out the [quote comment=”249912″]Is anyone else going through college football withdrawl?

Here’s to hoping that link never happen again…

…and that link would just go away.

Can you say link days? (I’m going to miss seeing Favre on Sunday’s…)

Can you say link?[/quote]
!

I was until I started trolling the schools’ websites to check on Spring Practice news.

As for the Ducks, I love their unis, but prefer those of the link era.[/quote]

Those Akili-era unis are definitely better than what they have now, but the best look was the Danny O’Neil/Alex Molden era, before they arbitrarily added black to their color scheme.

link — green, yellow and white, and nothing else.[/quote]

I agree – a slightly re-vamped version of this would be great.[/quote]

1. Those cleats, Nike Air Mission D., were great. I wore them my freshman year in college(95). Most of my team wore them as well as schools like Penn State. What was interesting about PSU wearing them was that they would black out most of the white areas on them. We would do the same using acrylic Krylon paint, every Friday night before our games. Because of the moisture on the grass, by the end of the games, the paint would have been beaten up, this necessitating a new job the next week!

2. I didn’t like the shade of yellow that they used, Dino Philyaw, nor the yellow facemasks. I much more preferred link!

link

[quote comment=”250092″]
No more crown in center? Bummer![/quote]

According to their page, there will be a new crown. The renovations won’t all be complete until next year.

Can you say link?

[quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I absolutely, totally agree.I don’t want this to turn into a racial thing, because it really is amazing what Jackie Robinson did … but must we celebrate it every year? It’s almost like the Sean Taylor “21” thing all over again.

[quote comment=”250095″][quote comment=”250085″]Last week it was mentioned the Royals changing the linkon the road uni to a version cut to the shape of the logo. They are still using the old style at home. No big deal because it is white-on-white, but just a little odd.

Also, many changes at “link”. Before and after show new left field bullpen, centerfield scoreboard and the removal of the board in LC. Maybe there were technical issues that necessitated the change but I really don’t think any of the new things enhance the look, IMO.[/quote]

It looks like construction is going on outside left field.[/quote]

Kauffmann? Stadium is beautiful in those shots. I have only been to Shea once, 25 years ago with my little league team in first grade and Yankee Stadium a mess of times. Not until I drove a family member to LaGuardia did I realize how close I am to both stadiums.

Someday I would love to see more of the ML ballbarks.

[quote comment=”250092″][quote comment=”250085″]Last week it was mentioned the Royals changing the linkon the road uni to a version cut to the shape of the logo. They are still using the old style at home. No big deal because it is white-on-white, but just a little odd.

Also, many changes at “link”. Before and after show new left field bullpen, centerfield scoreboard and the removal of the board in LC. Maybe there were technical issues that necessitated the change but I really don’t think any of the new things enhance the look, IMO.[/quote]

No more crown in center? Bummer![/quote]

The link had a crown on it, so maybe it’s to come, as mentioned work still going on.

[quote comment=”250098″]link[/quote]

Wow, good site!

Notice that Joe Girardi is choosing not to wear the Joe Torre style satin Yankee jacket while in the dugout. Instead, opting for the standard-issue Majestic style used by all teams this year.

[quote comment=”250092″][quote comment=”250085″]Last week it was mentioned the Royals changing the linkon the road uni to a version cut to the shape of the logo. They are still using the old style at home. No big deal because it is white-on-white, but just a little odd.

Also, many changes at “link”. Before and after show new left field bullpen, centerfield scoreboard and the removal of the board in LC. Maybe there were technical issues that necessitated the change but I really don’t think any of the new things enhance the look, IMO.[/quote]

No more crown in center? Bummer![/quote]
Did Dennis Green come through town recently?

[quote comment=”250101″][quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I absolutely, totally agree.I don’t want this to turn into a racial thing, because it really is amazing what Jackie Robinson did … but must we celebrate it every year? It’s almost like the Sean Taylor “21” thing all over again.[/quote]

Yeah, but as things stand now, Jackie Robinson Day is the only chance for players to wear, or fans to see, #42, because Selig banned it. Football players are free to wear #21 on their backs even if it isn’t on everyone’s helmet.

Unless they’re going to reinstate #42 for regular players in regular games, I like this annual celebration.

[quote comment=”250092″][quote comment=”250085″]Last week it was mentioned the Royals changing the linkon the road uni to a version cut to the shape of the logo. They are still using the old style at home. No big deal because it is white-on-white, but just a little odd.

Also, many changes at “link”. Before and after show new left field bullpen, centerfield scoreboard and the removal of the board in LC. Maybe there were technical issues that necessitated the change but I really don’t think any of the new things enhance the look, IMO.[/quote]

No more crown in center? Bummer![/quote]

I’m more disappointed to see the removal of “We Stand United”.

[quote comment=”250102″][quote comment=”250095″][quote comment=”250085″]Last week it was mentioned the Royals changing the linkon the road uni to a version cut to the shape of the logo. They are still using the old style at home. No big deal because it is white-on-white, but just a little odd.

Also, many changes at “link”. Before and after show new left field bullpen, centerfield scoreboard and the removal of the board in LC. Maybe there were technical issues that necessitated the change but I really don’t think any of the new things enhance the look, IMO.[/quote]

It looks like construction is going on outside left field.[/quote]

Kauffmann? Stadium is beautiful in those shots. I have only been to Shea once, 25 years ago with my little league team in first grade and Yankee Stadium a mess of times. Not until I drove a family member to LaGuardia did I realize how close I am to both stadiums.

Someday I would love to see more of the ML ballbarks.[/quote]

Everybody who goes there says the same thing “It looks brand new”. They say the same about Dodger Stadium.

I do prefer linkwithout the shit all over the place. Even Astroturf looks right here.

[quote comment=”250109″][quote comment=”250101″][quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]

I absolutely, totally agree.I don’t want this to turn into a racial thing, because it really is amazing what Jackie Robinson did … but must we celebrate it every year? It’s almost like the Sean Taylor “21” thing all over again.[/quote]

Yeah, but as things stand now, Jackie Robinson Day is the only chance for players to wear, or fans to see, #42, because Selig banned it. Football players are free to wear #21 on their backs even if it isn’t on everyone’s helmet.

Unless they’re going to reinstate #42 for regular players in regular games, I like this annual celebration.[/quote]
Banned? I wouldn’t call league-wide retirement of a number a “ban”. There’s a big difference between that and making a piece of equipment or style of uniform (too baggy, long, etc) a rule.

In most parks you can see 42 along with the home team’s retired numbers.

Again, to my previous post and the point: the nubmer 42 in and of itself isn’t going to educate people about Robinson.

Honor the date, have a commemorative patch or ball made and end it there.

It’s amazing to me that this blog’s author and many of those that post, thought the breast cancer thing with pink bats was gimmicky yet feel that every player wearing the same number is OK!?!?

Plus it’s very impractical, especially for umps keeping track of substitions and when no NOB applies. Maybe the fans and broadcaster’s know what players look like but what about those keeping stats, etc.

If it has to be 42, just put a patch on the sleeve like when the Pirates honored Clemente after his death.

[quote comment=”250105″]Notice that Joe Girardi is choosing not to wear the Joe Torre style satin Yankee jacket while in the dugout. Instead, opting for the standard-issue Majestic style used by all teams this year.[/quote]

Did the Yankees have an exception from MLB to wear those? Because I recall not only Torre but his staff (some of them anyway) wearing the satin jackets as well. If I recall correctly, during the Torre era I think that satin jacket was the only one offered on MLB’s website, unlike the other teams that had the standard-issue Majestic jackets.

Not that I’m complaining; I may be a Mets fan, but that was such a classy look and made it so that, no matter what era, be it 70’s, 80’s or 90’s, the Yankees had a uniform look to them.

As far the Mets and their use of black in their uniforms, it was OK at first when used as an alternate but now, I think the Mets have put overused it at the expense of their tradition (“Blue and Orange”)

[quote comment=”250113″][quote comment=”250109″][quote comment=”250101″][quote comment=”249910″]I’m all for honoring Jackie Robinson and the wearing of #42 throughout the MLB but by doing this on a regular basis, won’t it diminish his legacy? Eventually it will become “oh, it’s Jackie Robinson Day again.” I’d suggest that MLB do it just every five years, i.e. 60th, 65th, 70th anniversaries of breaking the color line. What does everyone else think?[/quote]